|
Post by Bob Porter on Aug 11, 2018 15:33:08 GMT
Bob Porter : That's a nice orchestration! Thanks for taking the time to mock it up. I wouldn't quite write it that way, though, but then you wouldn't have known that. I guess my main struggle is with how it would influence subsequent orchestration decisions, as I described in my previous post. If I go with WW + string + pizz bass, for example, it kinda sets the tone for what contrasts I could have in m.12. It would limit the effectiveness of introducing WW's as part of a vertical crescendo in mm.9-11. Going into the higher register too early would limit what I can do later for dramatic effect. Etcetera, etcetera. All tough decisions for me. Yes, now I understand. Consider looking at things a little differently. You look at decisions you make as limiting what you can do later. I propose that you look at them as expanding the possibilities of what you can do later. Seems to me that if you concentrate on being limited, it's going to be hard to move forward at all. Limited=negative Think positive. The beauty of working with orchestra is that there are so many things you can do with it. When you write for piano you are kind of stuck with one sound and limited effects. I'm not putting piano down. It goes without saying that you will need to change some of the piano idioms. Experience will tell you what size group to write for. In general you might start with a mid-sized group. Don't feel limited to this size. Remember, try to get the word limited out of your mind. Add or subtract instruments as you feel necessary.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 11, 2018 17:11:17 GMT
You're right, perhaps "limited" is the wrong way to describe it. But I think of it as reserving the best resources for the right moment(s). If I employ too many "tricks" too early on, then the audience will already have heard it all by the time the big moment comes, and there will not be much left to awe the audience with. But if I conserve my resources in the beginning, then when the big moment comes I can bring in the entire orchestra to really carry the audience away.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Aug 11, 2018 19:40:38 GMT
You're right, perhaps "limited" is the wrong way to describe it. But I think of it as reserving the best resources for the right moment(s). If I employ too many "tricks" too early on, then the audience will already have heard it all by the time the big moment comes, and there will not be much left to awe the audience with. But if I conserve my resources in the beginning, then when the big moment comes I can bring in the entire orchestra to really carry the audience away. Again, I'm not sure I'd look at it from the standpoint of trying to trick the audience into being awed by your music at the big moment. If fact, I'm not sure it's about an audience at all. Write what you like. If you don't like it, how can you expect anyone else to like it. You must surely have some kind of idea how to start orchestrating your piece. Just do it. After a few phrases, if things don't seem to gel, back up and try something different. Nothing is written in stone until you say it is. Try something. Even if you don't know what. If it doesn't work, try something else. It beats doing nothing, and thereby, getting nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Aug 11, 2018 19:58:24 GMT
So, not to be disagreeable, but I actually think more limitations are generally more freeing when writing music.
I remembered Igor Stravinsky wrote something about this, so I looked it up:
My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self of the chains that shackle the spirit.
I think the idea is that the fewer decisions you have to make, the decisions you do make become more meaningful and lead you in unexpected, interesting directions. If this is true for composition broadly, I think it's doubly so for orchestration (a difficult but highly teachable skill set of which many non-composers are expert).
You asked about picking an ensemble. I always follow the Rimsky-Korskaov hierarchy of "ear-tiring"-ness: strings are the most enjoyable to listen to for long periods, followed by winds, then brass and dead last: percussion. I think this hierarchy is also useful in determining the ensemble (absent real-life limitations).
So, the most basic, but most pleasing, non-chamber "orchestration" of your piano work would be a string ensemble. Large string ensembles are great but are, IMO, better suited for "big" pieces (which I don't think applies to your somewhat intimate, neo-classical piece). So relatively small string sections seem right to me.
Then on to winds. Yeah, I think you should include winds. There's lots of melodic writing in your piece (my favorite thing to do with winds). Unless it's a very small chamber orchestra, that standardly means 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets and 2 bassoons (2nd players doubling on auxiliary instruments). Could you get away with fewer? Surely, but the chances of a standalone piece being performed is much higher if you actually have written parts for the core orchestral players. Also, too few non-string instruments combined with strings will start to have a concerto-like feel (i.e., one part VS the others, as opposed to a single, unified ensemble). Maybe you want that?
How do you determine if you need a contrabassoon or a piccolo clarinet? Most of it is range. If you want a clarinet sound but written high above the staff, you probably need the piccolo clarinet. If you want a bassoon line that runs below the staff (and you don't want it to sound so rough) you need a contrabassoon. Of course these instruments also have unique colors/aspects that factor in considerably, but this at least is the general approach...
OK, on to brass. This is tricky. Your piece seems more intimate to me, so the *punch* for which the brass are most often used is probably not applicable. Could you use brass in subtle way? Of course, and that would be interesting to explore! But trumpets and trombones will add a lot of weight to the ensemble, regardless of how delicately they are used. You'll have to determine if that's what makes sense for your overall conception of the work. I mentioned horns in my earlier comment--they are the bridge between winds and brass and, of all the brass, seem most appropriate here.
Then finally percussion. Unless it's a specific effect I know I want upfront, I often think about percussion after I've done the rest of the orchestration: unpitched percussion to bring out a general or specific rhythm, timpani to accent chords or build tension (rolling crescendo), or just to add sparkle or color (most of the pitched percussion). I've been working on a Bartok orchestration recently where I deliberately avoided timpani and have lots of field and bass drums simply because I wanted the piece to evoke the sound of an outdoor marching band.
Anyway, you also asked about what I would describe as the "pacing" of the instrumentation. I think you can only master that by continually moving backward and forward through the score to determine how prior decisions relate to future ones, keeping in mind the following:
--Novelty is always appreciated by the ear. A clarinet solo will be 1000% more effective if the clarinet was not playing in the measures immediately prior. --The Rimsky-Korsakov list above with regard to which sections of the orchestra are least tiring to listen to continuously --Unlike string players, winds and brass players need to breathe, especially the lower wind and brass instruments, which take the most amount of breath
It might also be helpful to you conceptualize or even sketch out the "peaks" of the piece, where you imagine the full orchestra playing together and work backwards (and forwards) from there. If you want a gradual crescendo into those peaks, you can slowly build in adding instruments or sections--this is a way to "orchestrate" a crescendo, regardless of what the written dynamics are.
Finally, of course, making decisions and then getting feedback on them is the only way to get better at this stuff. This is a good group for that, but you can also join the Orchestration Online group on Facebook and you will get a *ton* of orchestration-specific feedback quickly.
|
|
|
Post by gx on Aug 11, 2018 21:36:01 GMT
Another great comment, John. (I too was thinking of mentioning the Stravinsky quote - paraphrasing, "Limitations (once you decide what they are!) set you free"
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Aug 12, 2018 0:38:27 GMT
Personally, I want all my options open to me at all times. Not having any where near the intellect of Stravinsky, I can't (a)afford to limit anything, (b) understand what he's saying. I'm not going to pretend to understand something I don't. But then I screwed-up an IQ test in high school. The closest I can come is, as I said, choose a path (it might not be quite right), go for it, and adjust as you go along. But I don't see that as limiting anything
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 12, 2018 3:01:24 GMT
Thanks, John, for another hefty comment filled with extremely useful information.
You're quite right about strings being the least tiring to listen to; I had read Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration text before (in part), and it agrees with my own listening experience. I think it was him, or maybe Adler, who said that composers go through stages in their developing their skill in orchestration, starting with an infatuation with brass (or was it percussion), but eventually ending with the conclusion that the strings are the most versatile and useful instruments that should form the core of one's orchestration, with the other choirs serving as complements to enhance the basic foundation set down by the strings.
In this light, I'm thinking perhaps I should just start with strings in the opening measures, and adding other instruments gradually. Which leads to the next question, which is, how to score the accompaniment figures. One option I'm considering is actually to throw out piano LH part completely (except for the implied bass line) and using 16th note tremolos / arpeggios in the middle strings. Only thing is, I'm rather inexperienced at writing string arpeggios; any tips along that direction, or perhaps point me to some representative excerpts from the literature, would be much appreciated.
As for whether or not to include brass: I actually have in mind a full brass ensemble for certain passages (though of course, whether or not it's appropriate is something that can be debated), so I'm inclined to add at least trumpets, horns, and trombones. You mentioned the delicacy of the melodies... perhaps it's due to the way Mike played them? Because the sound I have in mind is actually quite harsh in some passages, and I think having a full brass choir could be just what I need. But I could be wrong. It does bring up the question of how to balance a brass choir against the smaller string choir you suggested, though. Perhaps I should restrict myself to a smaller brass choir (2 trumpets + 2 horns + 2/3 trombones) instead of the standard medium/large orchestra 2 + 4 + 3 + tuba?
Anyway, regarding restrictions, I think I generally agree with John's (and Stravinsky's) sentiment that being restricted may actually turn out to be liberating, somewhat paradoxically. Having too many options can be debilitating, because you're liable to feel overwhelmed by the combinatorial explosion of possibilities, and thereby tend to make short-sighted or uninteresting choices. Being restricted forces you to be much more creative in using the limited resources that you do have, and thus, when taken rightly, can become a powerful drive towards creating something special and unique. To use a by-now-worn-out example, I have found that writing in fugal form has elicited much more creativity on my part, simply because of the extreme constraints imposed by the form. It has forced me to hone many aspects of composition that I have overlooked in the past, because I can no longer hide behind cheap devices or fallback to common cliches. (Of course, there isn't anything fugal in this current piece, but the lessons learned from writing fugues is definitely going to play a big role going forward.)
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 12, 2018 3:06:19 GMT
P.S. Identifying "peaks" in the orchestration and working backwards (or forwards) is a great idea! I think that's probably the route I will take, since I've already developed a clearer idea of the orchestration in certain key passages. I suppose they could be used as "landmarks" to navigate around the orchestration of preceding / following passages, to narrow down the ocean of possibilities to a smaller, more manageable set of meaningful decisions.
I'm just wondering if there are any established methods of doing this, e.g., notational shorthands / charts / etc., that might allow one to see the overall picture better instead of getting lost in the nitty-gritty of the finer details of the orchestration.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Aug 12, 2018 14:32:25 GMT
" Having too many options can be debilitating, because you're liable to feel overwhelmed by the combinatorial explosion of possibilities"
It just seems to me that if music is not an overwhelming explosion of possibilities, then what is it? Moreover, what good is it? Before you start any type of project, I feel you have to know what all the possibilities are. Once you start down a pathway, your options will naturally narrow, because of your skill and taste.
But I know it's just me. I can no more write within a formula than I can flap my arms and take off.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Aug 12, 2018 16:09:11 GMT
Thanks, John, for another hefty comment filled with extremely useful information. You're quite right about strings being the least tiring to listen to; I had read Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration text before (in part), and it agrees with my own listening experience. I think it was him, or maybe Adler, who said that composers go through stages in their developing their skill in orchestration, starting with an infatuation with brass (or was it percussion), but eventually ending with the conclusion that the strings are the most versatile and useful instruments that should form the core of one's orchestration, with the other choirs serving as complements to enhance the basic foundation set down by the strings. In this light, I'm thinking perhaps I should just start with strings in the opening measures, and adding other instruments gradually. R-K is great, but he's also just one guy. The wonderful thing about the orchestra is the amazing range - as long as you orchestrate well, you can flip as you like between different areas of focus. I sense that you share with me some kind of fear that a formless Them is going to emerge and condemn what you're doing, and that attitude is plain damaging. I've gone against my own ideas purely because Mozart wouldn't have changed keys, so why should I? Or whatever. I try my hardest to take what is useful from the masters, but not be constrained in the philosophy of my expression, or feel embarrassed that most of my music sounds like something should be exploding in the background. Strings are the easiest section to make sound good, I think that's certainly true. Their numbers and physics itself means simply expressed ideas will sound powerful and blended, and unlike every other section except percussion, you don't have to think in terms of maximum note duration or breathing space. But listen to some wind or brass band orchestrations and see if you think strings are the key to flexible, grounded writing! I find many pieces that use strings as the ubiquitous base quite tiring, unless the writing is excellent. Go the harder route and try a pure woodwind orchestration for a few bars. But hey, that's just:
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Aug 12, 2018 16:45:27 GMT
Well sure, read all the books on orchestration. But don't let them define you. They were written from a particular viewpoint and talent. Neither of which (viewpoint, my eyesight isn't what it used to be)( talent, ? ) are me.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 13, 2018 18:40:37 GMT
I suppose this is something reasonable people are going to disagree on, so I don't really want to press the argument. But just for the record, I have to say that I find wind ensembles consistently grating on my ears, especially wind-only chords. Wind + horns is not so bad, as the horn sound tends to smooth out the edge a little. I also can't stand the organ sound for long periods of time, though I do enjoy Saint-Saens' organ symphony where it is complemented by the rest of the orchestra. My ear is more tolerant of the brass timbres; but if I had to listen to a 30-minute brass symphony, I think I would be tempted to turn down the offer.
That's not to say the strings are unquestionably pleasant to the ears; it highly depends on how the string parts are written. If they are poorly written, it can get tiring after a while. Now, of course, one can argue that the same goes for wind/brass ensembles; but the catch here is that the strings offer so many more varieties, both in style, in range, and in technique (e.g., pizzicato, snap pizz, a hundred varieties of ways of bowing), and generally don't suffer from registral issues (i.e., string articulations generally work across the entire range, doesn't have sharp timbral differences across different registers like, say, clarinets or oboes do, etc.). So there are so many more ways you can make interesting sounds with strings to keep the ear from getting tired, whereas when writing for winds or brass, you're constantly confined by the generally limited range, or range + timbre combinations, or changes in how the instrument responds in different registers (e.g., very hard to play pp in lower bassoon range, weak oboe sound in upper range, dramatic timbral changes in clarinet as you go from low to high), or the need of players to breathe, etc.. It's certainly possible to write interesting wind/brass parts, or entire pieces, even, but there are more constraints to work with. Strings offer a much more consistent sound / set of articulations across their entire range, which makes them much easier to adapt to a large variety of musical tasks.
Perhaps the difference here is in the scale of the music we're dealing with: strings are generally more used in classical / art music settings, which also tend to feature longer pieces like symphonies or operas, whereas winds-only and brass-only works tend to be used more in band / pop / soundtrack / other settings, where long works are the exception rather than the norm. So the limitations of winds/brass/percussion in terms of tiringness to the ear don't really come into play in these shorter-scale genres, whereas for symphonic-style composers, we inevitably turn to the strings for long-term sustainability in terms of not being tiring to the ear. (Though I suspect there may also be some unconscious acclimatization to strings in classical / art music settings, just by tradition. So this analysis may be subject to some bias.)
Anyway, as far as personal tastes go, I find percussion the most tiring to listen to. In fact, sounds like steel drums or celesta that are frequently used in modern works to highlight notes grate on my ears quite a bit, and if overused make me cringe. But then my ear is heavily biased towards classical/romantic era stuff, so perhaps this is all just subjective. But there may be some grain of truth to R-K's observation since I'm obviously not the only one who tires of percussion easily. Or maybe it's collective bias speaking? Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Aug 13, 2018 18:50:12 GMT
As for Bob's comment about not letting textbooks define oneself, I do agree with the sentiment, but I also believe that one has to master what others have mastered before first -- to "learn the rules", as it were -- before one can effectively "break the rules", go somewhere new and original. The keyword being "effectively" of course -- anyone can break the "rules" arbitrarily, but the question is whether the result will be trash, or something new and wonderful. Generally, I don't follow the philosophy of sticking to the letter of the rules -- that's just blindly applying the formula / pushing the button without much artistic merit. The result is likely to be uninteresting and dull. So I do like to push the limits, sometimes a lot -- but as of right now I feel that I haven't mastered enough of orchestration yet to be able to go beyond the textbooks without getting myself lost. So -- for now -- my tendency is to follow what others have done. But the goal is that one day, I should be able to boldly tread where no orchestrator has trodden before -- and to be able to pull it off without making my audience's ears bleed or get many rotten fruits thrown in my general direction.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Aug 13, 2018 21:33:58 GMT
P.S. Identifying "peaks" in the orchestration and working backwards (or forwards) is a great idea! I think that's probably the route I will take, since I've already developed a clearer idea of the orchestration in certain key passages. I suppose they could be used as "landmarks" to navigate around the orchestration of preceding / following passages, to narrow down the ocean of possibilities to a smaller, more manageable set of meaningful decisions. I'm just wondering if there are any established methods of doing this, e.g., notational shorthands / charts / etc., that might allow one to see the overall picture better instead of getting lost in the nitty-gritty of the finer details of the orchestration. I think maybe sketching out in a "short score" would help? No hard and fast rules, but 4-6 staves, say, where you lay out some of the major orchestration decisions, including new patterns if you're reworking the left hand. The later movements of the Mahler 10 video posted a few weeks ago were left by Mahler in short score (he never finished the full orchestration). From Wikipedia:
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Aug 13, 2018 21:42:19 GMT
Just to be clear... I'm not dogmatic about any of this stuff. R-K was a master orchestrator, but I don't want my music to sound like his. It seemed Fuguestate was looking for a framework to approach his orchestration, so I thought I'd share the basics of the framework I come back to on a regular basis. Of course we should all seek our own personal approach to composition, but we don't need to start from scratch!
|
|